Summary: Miss X complained about poor advice given to her by a Council parking enforcement officer. As a result, she incurred a penalty from a private car park company. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about a Council giving her incorrect advice about where she could use a parking ticket which she bought from a street ticket machine. As a result, she parked in a private car park with an invalid ticket and incurred a penalty. She wants the Council to refund her for the penalty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which miss X submitted with her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss X bought a ticket from a street parking machine and tried to park in a car park nearby. A council enforcement officer (CEO) saw her and advised her that the ticket was not valid for that particular car park and she could incur a penalty. She says he advised her that she could use the ticket in all overflow car parks in the vicinity. She parked in a car park in another street but found she had received a penalty from a private car parking company who owned the site.
5. Miss X complained to the Council and asked it to accept fault in giving incorrect advice. The Council interviewed the officer who could not remember the events. The Council concluded that its officers know all the car parks in the area and would have advised her to park in any Council car park. The ticket was not valid in other car parks and there is no reason why an officer would advise someone to use it in private car parks.
6. There were no witnesses to the conversation with the CEO and so there are only the accounts from Miss X and the Council. There is no additional information which we could consider in any investigation. On the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely that the CEO would have saved Miss X from parking with an invalid ticket and incurring a penalty, only to advise her to park elsewhere where the ticket was invalid. The car parks in the area are clearly signed to differentiate between private and Council ownership together with their terms for parking. It is a matter for the motorist to ensure that they have a valid ticket for any site where they park.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman